The Guardian (USA)

Twitter won’t ruin the world. But constraini­ng democracy would

- Kenan Malik

Has the retweet ruined the world? Chris Wetherell, the software developer who built Twitter’s retweet button, thinks so. Introduced in 2009, retweeting transforme­d the social media landscape, he suggests, by allowing people to pass on informatio­n without having bothered to digest it. The result has been “the incentivis­ing of extreme, polarising and outrage-inducing content”. Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s CEO, is considerin­g adopting “incentives” to “encourage more considerat­ion before spread”.

The debate over the retweet button

may seem arcane and geeky. It is, though, a fascinatin­g lens through which to understand many contempora­ry social issues. It reveals how social anxieties are often played out in debates about technology and how such debates reflect, and exacerbate, broader social prejudices.

The problem of the retweet is not really a retweet problem. We can understand it only in the context of broader trends, in particular, our changing relationsh­ip to news and informatio­n and the growth of a more polarised society.

Last week, the media regulator Ofcom published its 2019 report on news consumptio­n in Britain. It showed the continuing trend of young people abandoning TV news as a source of informatio­n. Those over 65 watch 33 minutes of TV news a day. For those aged 16 to 24 that figure falls to just two minutes.

Almost 50% of people now find their news on social media. They no longer simply consume news but engage with it, sharing and commenting.

Active engagement rather than passive consumptio­n might seem to be a good thing. Many worry, though, that what it actually means is the greater spread of misinforma­tion. As John Sergeant, the BBC’s former chief political correspond­ent, told Radio 4’s PM, the problem with people forsaking mainstream media “is that you can’t inform them and increase their knowledge… So, how do you stop them not falling prey to fake news? They only have limited knowledge and you can’t correct it.” Such critics point to the willingnes­s of the electorate to believe Donald Trump’s constant untruths, the

Leave campaign’s infamous bus slogan and the odious conspiracy theories to which many cling as evidence of what happens in a more fragmented informatio­n landscape.

It’s true that those who voted for Trump or for Brexit are likely to have been less educated than those who oppose the US president or support Remain. Yet the roots of ignorance and misinforma­tion are complex. A recent study in the US asked Democrats and Republican­s about what their opponents thought on a range of political issues, from tax to immigratio­n. Those who rarely followed the news had a better grasp of their opponents’ views than did news junkies. And, particular­ly among Democrats, the more educated the respondent, the more skewed their perception of their opponents.

Studies of Remainers and Brexiters suggest a similar pattern on this side of the Atlantic. And, as the Carl Beech case reveals, it’s not just the uneducated who promote irrational conspiracy theories.

Education is a good but is, in itself, no insurance against cognitive bias, no shield against a tendency to jump to conclusion­s unwarrante­d by the facts. Yet, so deep-seated are prejudices about the uneducated masses that many prominent figures, from biologist Richard Dawkins to philosophe­r Jason Brennan, have called for the vote to be confined to the better informed.

What does all this have to do with the retweeting debate? There are real issues to be addressed about how informatio­n sharing can lead to Twitter mobs, fake news and online hate. But the debate also expresses deeper anxieties about allowing people too much sway. “I remember specifical­ly one day thinking of that phrase: we put power in the hands of people,” Wetherell observes. “But now, what if you just say it slightly differentl­y: oh no, we put power into the hands of people.”

It’s a fear that has leached from politics into technology. Where once we were enamoured of democracy, now many panic about its consequenc­es. And where once many lauded technology as empowering people, now that is precisely what many fear.

“Audiences that regularly amplify awful posts,” Wetherell suggests, should be suspended or banned from platforms. This is the technologi­cal equivalent of restrictin­g the franchise. And it’s already happening. From laws enforcing takedowns of fake news to bans on those promoting unpalatabl­e ideas, such restrictio­ns have become the norm.

The problems of Twitter mobs and fake news are real. As are the issues raised by populism and anti-migrant hostility. But neither in technology nor in society will we solve any problem by beginning with the thought: “Oh no, we put power into the hands of people.” Retweeting won’t ruin the world. Constraini­ng democracy may well do.

• Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

 ??  ??
 ??  ?? A 3D-printed logo for Twitter. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters
A 3D-printed logo for Twitter. Photograph: Dado Ruvić/Reuters

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States